Chelsea?s critics guilty of switching from the historical to

[TT]

Chelsea?s critics guilty of switching from the historical to the hysterical

Superb Article by Martin Samuel:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/col...icle1415316.ece

[BlueBeard]

Great article, made a nice change to read something that didn't totally slag us off.

But hasn't Martin Samuel been one of the worst critics of all things Chelsea over the last couple of years, or am I thinking of someone else? If it's the same bloke, he's one hell of a hypocrite.

[andy]

Very good, think he might have read our forums !! ??

[Chippy]

A very good read, some of those things need to be quoted to a lot of hypocrites out there.

cheers

[bennyboy1976]

That is a superb read, i must admit i can't normally stand M Samual, but on this occasion he is spot on with everything he has stated.

[bjd]

sorry, ive just posted this again in THE CLUB section.

its a great read, and pretty much sums up everything i have been saying to goons and scousers for the past 2 years

[loz]

Very good, think he might have read our forums !! ??

my exact thoughts when i read it.

Although it is a refreshing read there is nothing in it that you won't find (other than a little grammar and punctuation!!) if you do a bit of searching around some football forums, and especially this one.

With a bit of copy and pasting and a little cleaning up Martin Samuel could have created the article without turning his brain on.

However at least he did and at least the Times published it!

[TT]

Great article, made a nice change to read something that didn't totally slag us off.

But hasn't Martin Samuel been one of the worst critics of all things Chelsea over the last couple of years, or am I thinking of someone else? If it's the same bloke, he's one hell of a hypocrite.

I think you are right. It is very unusually positive from him.

[bjd]

I actually think Samuel has been quite positive towards us over the past few years (at least most of the time) I think he is generally quite fair. I could say the same of Oliver Holt too.

The worst culprit is Patrick Collins of The Mail. His ramblings are so biased it borders on unprofessionalsim.

[sweet waffle]

I actually think Samuel has been quite positive towards us over the past few years (at least most of the time) I think he is generally quite fair. I could say the same of Oliver Holt too.

The worst culprit is Patrick Collins of The Mail. His ramblings are so biased it borders on unprofessionalsim.

Add Brian Reade to the list, he can't stand us.

[g3.7]

jeff powell is obviously the worst. although, it's difficult to call him a journalist. I prefer "a monkey with access to crayons".

[Englishman]

jeff powell is obviously the worst. although, it's difficult to call him a journalist. I prefer "a monkey with access to crayons".

Jeff Powell. The only journalist in Britain who still thinks Terry Venables is a genius.

That's all that has to be said.

As for Patrick Collins, whatever Bates said to him all those years ago must have been hilarious.

[c3blu]

Good article. I think your right, he's been on here. And its true, hypocrisy and jealousy.

[mad_mac]

finally a journo talking sense????